Most people in favor of rent control are also in favor of massive social housing investments. The private sector isn't the only way housing is produced, thus rent control isn't inherently anti-housing
Fundamentally, you can't budget you way out of poverty. The purpose of state housing is providing a safety net to provide for a basic need.
You can't look at housing demand though purely one lens of affordable housing. It is an important way to view the issue of housing, but there are other factors.
These factors will be in tension with each other. That is the nature of wicked problems.
Some good points but misses a whole lot in the simplification. Price is but one signal and it's an overall or composite at that. It requires interpretation. Change in price does not, on its own, tell you anything about what drives it. When capital appreciation is the primary motive for increased demand it is not a housing supply issue at all.
Adjusting land use and building permit policy to improve housing can be like prescribing appetite suppressants for a tapeworm -- sensible if you think the problem is eating too much, absurd once you know what's actually consuming the resources.
I am very intrigued to see where the Seattle Social Housing Developer goes, as it is a combination of these ideas you discuss. Government-backed model for housing that isn't the entire market, but does not have onerous restrictions like traditional HUD housing. I see this as the happy medium between folks who want price controls and market oriented people. What are your thoughts?
One thing I see here in Germany is that pricing is indeed a wonderful signal for the investors to know where the best profit margins are. Sadly that does not necessarily overlap greatly with where affordable housing is needed.
Most people in favor of rent control are also in favor of massive social housing investments. The private sector isn't the only way housing is produced, thus rent control isn't inherently anti-housing
Great piece, Andy!
I think you would enjoy and see a lot of parallels in a post I put up on Range NYC a couple of weeks ago. Here is the link: https://rangenyc.substack.com/p/nyc-has-a-housing-crisis-not-an-affordability
A million square feet of unbuildable FAR might as well be zero.
Fundamentally, you can't budget you way out of poverty. The purpose of state housing is providing a safety net to provide for a basic need.
You can't look at housing demand though purely one lens of affordable housing. It is an important way to view the issue of housing, but there are other factors.
These factors will be in tension with each other. That is the nature of wicked problems.
Some good points but misses a whole lot in the simplification. Price is but one signal and it's an overall or composite at that. It requires interpretation. Change in price does not, on its own, tell you anything about what drives it. When capital appreciation is the primary motive for increased demand it is not a housing supply issue at all.
Adjusting land use and building permit policy to improve housing can be like prescribing appetite suppressants for a tapeworm -- sensible if you think the problem is eating too much, absurd once you know what's actually consuming the resources.
I am very intrigued to see where the Seattle Social Housing Developer goes, as it is a combination of these ideas you discuss. Government-backed model for housing that isn't the entire market, but does not have onerous restrictions like traditional HUD housing. I see this as the happy medium between folks who want price controls and market oriented people. What are your thoughts?
One thing I see here in Germany is that pricing is indeed a wonderful signal for the investors to know where the best profit margins are. Sadly that does not necessarily overlap greatly with where affordable housing is needed.